I agree, that Mozart, Bach and Beethoven all show extraordinary intellect and talent, which still challenges that of modern composers. But, it has to be remembered that at the time (without hindsight) the music these composers wrote was aimed at a specific audience, much like that of pop*. The audience was very much different, but it is this consistent ideology of audience engagement, which can be seen in any performer, and in any field of music. The Beatles music or sound may not be classed as complex but it certainly contains depth and meaning. This is obvious and, naturally celebrated. Mccartney being a critical figure in the 'four-headed monster' can therefore be honored with such a comment.Songs such as Yesterday, Penny Lane, Eleanor Rigby, Let it be .. etcThe above songs all show what you term geniusOh, and the songs you have mentioned, its not like Lennon sat in a white room, cut off from all life, and wrote, played and recorded all by himself...howway, ever recorded yourself? It doesn't work like that. Mccartney input was critical to Lennon (and obviously vica-versa) so Mccartney can, like Lennon, be celebrated.

Mccartney as a seperate entity? Yes, of course!The Beatles are the best at what they do, much like the classical comparison of Mozart, Bach and Beethoven.

* The term pop often troubles me. We all know the interpretation has changed over the decades, but using pop to front a negative view on the actual music is a modern misconception of meaning.

Oh, and the songs you have mentioned, its not like Lennon sat in a white room, cut off from all life, and wrote, played and recorded all by himself...howway, ever recorded yourself? It doesn't work like that. Mccartney input was critical to Lennon (and obviously vica-versa) so Mccartney can, like Lennon, be celebrated.

True, so true. I didn't mean to imply no-one else had any input. But the idea of the songs I quoted was John Lennon's. But without the others and George Martin, and engineers, they would not have been the works they are.

Quote

The Beatles music or sound may not be classed as complex but it certainly contains depth and meaning. This is obvious and, naturally celebrated. Mccartney being a critical figure in the 'four-headed monster'

Interesting. I think THE song of Macca's that might (just might) be remembered is For No One. The perspective from which the singer sings is very interesting. The singer is neither the man nor the woman, but is inside each of their heads.

Some of the twists in the song are unique to a love song. For example, "... all her words of kindness linger on when she no longer needs you". Kindness? What a thing for a pining lover to remember! Her words of kindness! What sort of love and relationship did this couple have?

Virtually no-one knows (outside rabid fans) about For No One. Long may it remain that way, so it remains a superb song (OK work of genius) to be discovered and re-discovered.

I never hear those guys on the radio. But,The Beatles,I hear all the time. Of course,I fall asleep when I try to listen to classical music-just not sophisticated enough,I guess. They need better lyrics.

Well that is just simply nonsense. Anyone who agrees with that simply has no clue about the complexity and depth of the music written by those three, especially Bach (meaning Johann Sebastian Bach, I presume).

The complexity and depth of the music are totally irrelevant! It's the impact that it had that matters. The music of The Beatles had a much bigger impact on humanity (partially because of radio and TV of course) than Bach's music ever had.

Hundreds of years from now, the Beatles will be remembered as almost mythical figures, like we remember Shakespear, Da Vinci, Bach or Rembrandt now.

And most classical might be much more complex and deeper than any piece of pop music ever made, but I think it's arrogant to think that (good) pop music is a lower art form than classical music, painting, sculpturing or poetry. Cause it simply isn't. I studied art history for several years, but no art form has ever touched me the way pop music does. To not recognize pop music as a true form of art is to me arrogant and overtly conservative.

You've gotta be kidding... If writing the best selling music ever isn't good enough to be labeled a genius, then I seriously don't know what is... You're just not making any sense here.

I couldnt have said it any better.

This whole thread reminds me of something Maria said many moons ago, that after George died, his music would be more highly praised than Pauls. That may have been the stupidest thing i've ever read. I love George and his solo stuff, but outside of the more intense Beatle fans, his music is almost forgotten NOW. Sad but true.

I think most of you folk posting in this thread don't quite realize how long 500 years is. In 1505 (500 years ago), there was a wealth of popular songs - as in all times. Virtually all of them are now long forgotten. Same applies to literature, all sorts of music, art. Only the very best survive. My point is that only a few Beatles works will survive if any: and they will be Lennon's, as the songs of his I gave earlier are more than "pop hits" of their day. They feel to me to have a timeless quality, which is part of their attraction.

But Paul McCartney remembered for his work OTHER THAN AS A BEATLE? Oh no. I think that's as certain as anything can be. You think people will be talking about Band On the Run in 500 years? Come on, that's silly.

Some of you need to be educated in some other forms of music too. The person who said he never hears Beethoven etc on the radio ain't listening to suitable stations!

This whole thread reminds me of something Maria said many moons ago, that after George died, his music would be more highly praised than Pauls. That may have been the stupidest thing i've ever read. I love George and his solo stuff, but outside of the more intense Beatle fans, his music is almost forgotten NOW. Sad but true.

In some circles, George's work is much more praised than McCartney's. I think a lot of Paul's revisionism stems from the realization that only his Beatle work is respected and of lasting value. His whole solo career is pretty empty - there were good times, and lots of people come to his concerts still. But only coz he was a Beatle. Do you think Flaming Pie or McCartney (1) or Red Rose Speedway or Flowers In The Dirt would have gone anywhere if Paul had NOT been a Beatle?

George's Beatle work (playing and some of his songs) are respected, AND some of his solo work is wonderful, and is so valued. Paul's silly love songs haunt him, that's for sure.

Could someone please list a bunch of solo songs from each so we can sort of see and compare. I'm not that into their solo stuff, so I'm only familiar with the popular stuff. But I'd like to know which songs you all would say are thier best. Like if you list 10 or more songs from each maybe it will paint a better picture.